ishay landa - the strange case of georges sorel (excerpt from the apprentice's sorcerer)

7/26/2019 Ishay Landa - The Strange Case of Georges Sorel (Excerpt From the Apprentice's Sorcerer)

1/33

anti-liberal liberalsii 187

Heembraced dictatorship to avertthetriumph and rescind thegains,politicaland henceeconomical, of populardemocracy.9

Te Strange Case of Georges Sorel

Te lastanti-liberal liberal whose ideas I wish to examine is GeorgesSorel, who hasbeen traditionally assigned an important place in thegenealogy of fascism. My historiographic point of reference in thiscaseistheIsraelihistorian, Zeev Sternhell, forwhom thefn-de-sicleFrench politicalthinkerrepresentswell-nigh theideologicalfounderoffascism, theonewho had triggered theall-importantanti-materialistrevisionof Marxism from which thefascistsynthesis hasemerged.Teconfrontationwith Sorelsideaswillthusaord ustheproperocca-sionto dealcritically with Sternhellshighly inuentialtheory of fascismand proto-fascism, which hasbeenresponsible, perhapsmorethananyothersinglescholarly factor, forafar-reaching transubstantiationof the

mainstrea

m hist

ori

ogra

phi

c un

derstan

din

g of fas

cis

m.Teundeniablemeritsof Sternhellsstudiesnotwithstandingaboveallthefactthatthey havehelped to expand thehabitualscholarly focusto seriously include the French intellectual and political tradition,thereby showing thatfascism wasapan-Europeanphenomenon, ratherthan a mere local accidentthe theoretical framework he proposedhasprovenproblematical. Fascism, heargued, wasnottheexclusivelyright-wing politicalcurrentitwasthoughtto be, itwasneitherrightnor le, and in fact in its original impulse much more indebted tothe lef. Ithad inspired anew schoolof ideologicalinterpretationthatdenies the class content formerly ascribed to fascism, and assumesthat ideology was the central part of fascist politics rather thanany

socialormaterialconcern, without inreality providing thenecessary

9 As part of an overall eort to depict fascism as a force apart from capitalism,Michael Mann underplays Schmitts commitment to capitalism. Schmittsemphasis,according to Mannwasonthestate and onorder (seeMann2004: 7577). Butitwasclearly notSchmittsconcern, forhecould havehad both, and inabundance, inaBolshevik Germany, emulating theSovietlead. Butsuchorderand suchstatewerehisnightmare. Teabstractidealsof stateand orderwerethusonly meaningfulassubser-vientto theconcreteaimsof capitalism and imperialistic expansion. Letusnotforget,against theattempt to downplay the centrality of theeconomical to Schmitt, and byextensionto fascism, hiscategoricalstatementthattheterrainonwhich the momentoussplitbetweenliberalism and democracy ismoststrongly manifested, isfnance.


2/33

188 chapter our

evidenceto justify such sweeping revision. My misgivingsconcerningsuch framework have, ingeneral, littleto do with the factspresented,butratherwith theirarrangementand signifcation. Sternhellsome-whatlikeSchapiro, whosetheorieshaveaccompanied ourdiscussionofProudhonand Carlyleisoneof thosehistoriansfrom whom onecan

learnagreatdealontheconditionthattheiroverarching interpretationof thematerialistakenwith asizeablegrainof salt.

Te Crisis of Socialism?

So what was Sternhellsaccount of thebirth of fascist ideology, thetitleof oneof hisbooks, and whatroledid Sorelplay in it? Ingrasp-ing the gist of Sternhells story, it is useful to begin by saying that,in its fundamental outlines, it is diametrically opposed to the one Ihave been unfolding: in my version of history, fascism was mainlytheproductof a long-term crisisof liberalism, and aresponse to theadvancesof socialismrevolutionary as well asdemocratic (this, aswes

hall

s

hortl

ysee

,is

a

ver

yi

mportant

point

, parti

cularl

y wit

hre

gar

dt

oSternhellstheories). Fascism wasenveloped inthelogic and contradic-tionsof liberalism, erupting atanapex of theliberalpredicament, asaform of thelattersdenouement(which isnotto say apre-determinedor inevitable outcome). Sternhell, on the very contrary, claimed thatfascism10wasbornasaresultof the triumph of liberalismand the crisisof socialism. How did liberalism triumph, and how did socialism lose?Onaccountof democracy. Democracy, which Sternhellusually identifeswith liberalism, gradually expanded to createawidespread politicalcon-sensus, blurring theformerly sharp linesof classantagonism and henceeliminating thepermanentforeboding of arevolutionary are-up fromwhich classicalsocialism nourished and onwhich itbased itshopefor

aradicalsocialtransformation. Instead of defying thebourgeoisestab-lishment, Marxistparties, undertherevisionistinuenceof thelikesofEduard BernsteininGermany, Saverio Merlino inItaly and JeanJaursin France, wereengulfed by theestablishment, becoming merely one

10 Or at least fascist ideology, and in Sternhells account fascist ideology and itspolitical practiceare virtually exchangeable, the latterbecoming a kind of imperfectapplicationof thefrmly established ideologicaltenets. Infact, itisboldly maintainedthat fascist praxis was distinctly less opportunistic and accommodating than that ofothermajor ideologies, such as liberalism and socialism: Likeany othermovement,the fascist movement too engaged in dierent compromises; and yet, in the case offascism, thecorrespondencebetweenideology and practiceisthehighest (Sternhell:1988a: 42).


3/33


moreplayerontheparliamentarianstage, if slightly to thele. Hence,in anutshell, the crisis of socialism / Marxism. At thebeginning ofthe[20th] century, Sternhellavers(1986: 85), liberaldemocracy hadbecome the guardian of the established order, a veritable citadel ofconservatism. Or, ingreaterdetail:

Terevision of Marxism . . . in factmeant theacceptanceof the capital-istand bourgeoisorder. . . . Terevolutionary Marxistprinciplesteadilyeroded and thesocialistpartiesaccepted, withoutexception, theverdictof liberaldemocracy. . . . Inthatway wasformed aliberalpoliticalculture,resting ontheprinciplesof theliberalrevolutionsof the17th- and 18thcenturies(Sternhell1988a: 10).11

And how did fascism evolveoutof thissocialistcrisis, and thebour-geois-liberaltriumph? Atthemarginsof thesocialistpartiesremainedthe ultra leists, stick-in-the-mud revolutionaries who would haveabsolutely nothing to do with capitalism and theruleof thebourgeoisie.Tisminority, which refusesto acceptthecapitalistorder, would, inturn, divideinto two dissidentbranches: Leninists, who would upholdthe violent revolution, butnow in thename of the proletariat, to becarried outby asmallavant-gardeof professionalrevolutionaries, andSorelians, who opened up anew revolutionary course (23). From thislatterbranch would spring fascism. Sorel, of course, would be theirkey fgure. Initially believing inthepowerof theproletariat, hewouldembracetheillusiveoptionof revolutionary syndicalism. Soonenough,however, heand hisdiscipleswould understand thatsuch hopeswereunfounded, and turn to develop anew socialism, of Marxistorigins,which keepstaking distancefrom proletariansocialism and evolvesintoasocialism of theentiresociety (2324). Being to thelenotonly ofocial, reformistsocialism, butof thecomplacentproletariatitself, Sorel,and by extensiontheproto-fascists, wereultimately logically forced toabandon the working classand replace itas carrier of the revolutionby thenation. Sorelians, Sternhellwrites(26), remaincommitted totheirrevolutionary positions, aertheproletariathaswithdrawnfromthem: betweenarevolutionwithoutaproletariatand aproletariatwith-outarevolution, they choserevolution. Terefore, thiswillalready beanationalrevolution. Combined with theorganic, tribalnationalismwhich evolvesroughly atthesametime(end of the19th century, startof the 20th), and receives quintessentialexpression in thewritings of

11 Cf. also Sternhell(1994: 1517).


4/33

190 chapter our

such intellectualsasMauriceBarrsorEnrico Corradini, thesetwo maincomponentswould form thenationalsocialist synthesis, i.e., fascism:TusdevelopsinFranceof thelate19th century asynthesisof tribal,Darwinistnationalism, with asocialradicalism which developsinto asortof anti-Marxistsocialism, and inmany waysalready post-Marxist:

thissynthesistakesthenameof nationalsocialism (1920). Tisunitednational socialist front had provided the intransigent revolutionarieswith anew and eectiveplatform from which to launch theirassaulton the bourgeois, liberal, capitalist order, aer Marxism had failedto deliver thegoods: He who abidesby theeliminationof thebour-geoisorder. . . is forced to deviseanew weapon. . . since. . . theMarxistweapon. . . isno longereectiveforthecurrentcampaign. . . Tisisthemeaning of Sorelsrectifcationof Marxism (2425).

Sternhellsaccountof thebourgeois-liberalhegemony exasperatingtherevolutionary Soreliansand driving them to seek new outlets fortheirradicalzealisinterchangeablewith theearlierargumentof EugenWeber. ForWeber(1964: 32), too, Sorelhad to adjusttheconventional

Marxistanalysis. . . Itwasnave, thoughtSorel, to putyourtrustinthegradualproletarizationof asociety which, contrary to thepredictionstheCommunist Manifestohad madein1848, wasbecoming increasinglybourgeoisand everlessinclined to desperaterevolution.

Butwassociety indeed becoming increasingly bourgeois? Weber,and Sternhellinhiswake,12dramatically exaggerated theextentof thecrisisof orthodox Marxism and of the gains madeby thebourgeois-liberal forces. As faras Marxism is concerned, we havealready seenhow aMarxistasorthodox asEngelscould, aslateas1895, oozeopti-mism with regardsto thefutureof Marxism withinaparliamentarian,bourgeois, legal framework. Far from consternated by the delayin the revolutionary Day of Judgment, Engels was worried that thesocialistswould taketo thestreetsto conductanarmed strugglemadeimpracticalundermodernwarfaretechniques, and thereby jeopardize

12 Indeed, intheearly sixties, Weberwhom Sternhellmentioned intheAcknow-ledgments sectionof Neither Right nor Lefalready outlined, oneby one, allthemainfeatures of theSternhellian interpretation of fascism, from the insistence on fascismas revolutionary and implementing a variant of socialism, through the presentationof fascism asanti-liberal, and downto theclaim that fascism needsto betakenseri-ously asanideology, discarding cynicism and materialistic deconstruction. Noticethesimilarity eveninformulation: my objectivity, said Weber, consistsof taking Fascistsand nationalSocialistsat their word (1964: 3; italicsadded). WeberevenanticipatedSternhells focus on France as a major laboratory of fascist ideology, including thestressonSorelasapivotalthinker.


5/33


the political power they were daily accruing through democracy. Aquick reminder:

Tepartiesof order, asthey callthemselves, areperishing underthelegalconditions created by themselves. . . whereaswe, under this legality, getfrm musclesand rosy cheeksand look likelifeeternal. And if wearenot

so crazy asto letourselvesbedrivento streetfghting inorderto pleasethem, thenintheend thereisnothing leforthem to do butthemselvesbreak through thisdirelegality (Engels1895).

Engelswashereperhapsoverly sanguine, notforeseeing thedicultiesand limitationsof such a legalway of action from aradically socialistpointof view, and surely hewould havesharply disapproved of manyof theconcessionsand accommodationsof Bernsteinand Co. Yetfromhere, to concludea fatal demise of Marxist potency, both actual andtheoretical, isclearly unwarranted. And Marx himself, whileneverquiteasoptimistic asEngelsaboutthepossibility of transforming capitalismby using thepoliticalapparatusof bourgeoisdemocracy, regarded fromthevery beginning (i.e., Te Communist Manifesto) working insidepar-liamentsa vital facet of socialist strategy, indeed whenevernecessaryalongside thebourgeoisie. In Germany, Engelsand Marx (2005: 88)averred, thecommunistsfghtwith thebourgeoisiewheneveritactsinarevolutionary way, againsttheabsolutemonarchy, thefeudalsquirearchy,and thepetty bourgeoisie. Similarly, they stated thatthefrststep intherevolutionby theworking classisto raisetheproletariatto thepositionof ruling class, to win the battle of democracy. Teproletariatwilluseitspolitical supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from thebour-geoisie, to centralizeallinstrumentsof productioninthehandsof thestate, i.e., of theproletariatorganized astheruling class (69; emphasesadded). Marx neverfundamentally altered thisinitialconception, andif hedissented from thepracticeof theGermanSocialists, asexpressedmost famously inhis1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme, thiswasdoneinconcretedisagreementwith thetacticsand aimsformulated bytheLassalleansand theiraccommodation to Bismarcksstate, and notinprincipled refutationof party action.13

13 Not even Lenin, for that matter, to whom Sternhell imputes a despairing ofthe revolutionary potential of the proletariat, would have subscribed to socialism asachieved strictly by direct, violentrevolutionary methods. Onthecontrary, heattackedatlengthmostnotably inhisLef-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorderpreciselythoseultra-leistswho would dispensewith parliamentary work, which heregardedasabsolutely vitalinpreparing themassesforrevolution. Hesaid (1920), forexample,thattheBolshevikscould not havepreserved (letalonestrengthened and developed)


6/33

192 chapter our

Tiswasthevantagepointof many, though notall, socialists. Andthey werenotalone in this assessment of democracy. We have seenhow numerousbourgeois liberals and conservatives, for their part,wereexasperated by thedemocratic empowermentof socialism and thefrustrating interventionineconomic liberalism. Wehaveseenthatfor

such people, oppositionto politicalliberalism wasaform of defendingcapitalism. Tenarrativeof liberalism triumphant, attacked by desper-atesocialist-cum-fascistrenegades, thereforediscountsthefactthatthedemocratic powerof socialistparties, thenon-revolutionary demandsof organized workers, werenearly asdisturbing from acapitalistpointof view asthepossibility of revolution.14Tiswasthecrisis, precisely,of liberalism, which fascism came to solveby creating, objectively, anew kind of liberalism, not socialism. For fascism (and Nazism) didnotmerely wish to vanquish socialism asrevolutionary enemy; itwasequally concerned aboutsocialism asademocratic partner.

Among these liberals frustrated by democracy was Paretowho,incidentally, admired Soreland wasappreciated inreturnaswellas

Gaetano Mosca. I analyzed Paretospositionindetailabove, and nowturn to Mosca fora reminder of thebasic liberal predicament, facedwith democracy onceitveersinasocialistdirection, and by no meansin a strictly revolutionary sense. Tebourgeoisie, Mosca armed

thecoreof therevolutionary party of theproletariat, had they notupheld, inamoststrenuousstruggle, theviewpointthatitwasobligatoryto combinelegaland illegalformsof struggle, and thatitwasobligatoryto participateeveninamostreactionary parlia-ment. Elsewhereinthesametext, Leninclaimed thatto repudiatetheparty principleastheoppositionwould likeistantamountto completely disarming theproletariatintheinterests of the bourgeoisie. Tisgoesto refuteany notionof Leninism asextolling thesolitary work of desperadoes who can dispense with the masses or work aloof fromthe existing political frameworks. Leninexpressly embraced Engels position in thatmatter, concerning theneed for patientand tactical action, and quoted him against

thoseultra leistswho areCommunists if communism willbe introduced thedayaertomorrow. If thatisnotimmediately possible, they arenotCommunists.

14 Tereare, to besure, seriousinconsistenciesinSternhellsdiscussionof therapportbetweenliberalism and democracy. Attimes(1988a: 10) heinsisted that, by thestartofthe20th century, they had successfully merged into each other, leaving theirfeudsinthepast: Toward theend of the19th century theprocessesof theadjustmentof liberal-ism to politicaldemocratization. . . had matured. Withinthenew masssociety, liberaldemocracy had becomeafact. E lsewhere(1994: 13), however, hearmed thatsuchfusionwasactually farfrom smooth: Itwaswith tremendousdiculty thatliberalism,adopting theprincipleof politicalequality, developed into liberaldemocracy. Tiswasoneof themainaspectsof thecrisisof the turnof thecentury asof thethoseof theinterwar period. Te second observation, however, essentially remainsa pro-formacaveat, carrying littleorno weightwithinSternhellsoverallnarrative. Which meansthat, despitethesaid tremendousdiculty experienced by liberalism, itisfrom withinsocialism, notliberalism, thatfascism isreputed to haveemerged.


7/33


(1939: 392), hasbeen, inasense, theprisonernotonly of itsdemo-cratic principlesbut also of its liberal principles. Slave to its ownpreconceptions, he elsewhere elaborates, the Europeanbourgeoisiehasfoughtsocialism allalong with itsrighthand tied and itslehandfar from free. Instead of fghting socialism openly, [they accepted]

compromises that were sometimes, nay almost always, undignifedand harmful (479). Te main upshot of attributing to Sorel such acentral role in the spadework for fascism is to distinguish, purport-edly, the lefist, radicaloriginsof fascism. For indeed, virtually aloneamong thinkersof importancewho havebeenassociated with fascism,Sorel is traditionally thoughtof asamanof the le. Yet thisattemptat tracing thegenesisof fascism back to aSorelianeurekamomentisheavily awed. If Mussolinidid notconcealhisadmiration forSorel,neitherdid hemakeany secretof hisprofound debtto Pareto. So theoverriding focus on Sorel isasarbitrary as it is functional. For withPareto and Moscatwo thinkerswho wereonceoencentrally linkedwith fascism butarecurrently mentioned only marginallythe leist

background of fascism fades; instead of a link with radicalanarcho-syndicalism viaSorel, onefndsa link to laissez-fairecapitalism. Andsuchafamily treeisobviously notwhatthemainstream of scholarshipwas out to draw. Hence, symptomatically, their role was drasticallydownplayed, by both Weberand Sternhell: the former ignored themaltogetherand the lattermentioned them inpassing and always fromacertaindistance, as itwere, asvague inuencesover the thoughtofthenew, post-Marxistsocialists, withoutexplaining theirteachingsdirectly and in detail. Tis yielded a fuzzy portrayal which preventsanidentifcationof theprecise, i.e., largely liberaland pro-capitalistic,contoursof theiranti-democratic thought. Pareto and Mosca, instead,wereassociated with thedevelopmentof revolutionary syndicalism

(Sternhell1986: 34).

Painting the Roses Red: Sorels Post-Liberalism

Tisreectsapeculiarquality of Sternhellsanalysisthatworkswith apainting brush which, likethoseof theQueenof Hearts card servantsinAlices Adventures in Wonderland, paintswhiteroses, red. Whateverhe touches is prone to turn socialistic: Not only Proudhon, whosometimeshasbeendescribed asasocialist, butalso Nietzsche, LeBon,and Pareto: they allinuenced, wearetold, thebirth of Sorelsethicalsocialism (Sternhell1986: 34). Sorels teachings thus form, apriori, a


8/33

194 chapter our

highly lucrativenode, tying leistradicalism with fascism, and attest-ing to thebirth of anew socialism. Butarethey areliablefoundation,too? Ashappenswith many otherfgureswho aresometimesseenasproto-fascistsfrom Carlyleand Nietzscheto Pareto and Moscatherearevastdisagreementsasto whatextent, if atall, Sorelcould belegiti-

mately so described. Attheotherextremefrom Sternhellarethose, likeMichelCharzat(1983), who refuseany connectionwhatsoever, whetherpersonalorideological. Stillothershavehad misgivingslessabouttheproto-fascist contribution Sternhellattributed to Sorel (although theydoubted itsdegreeand itscentrality), butquestioned theidentifcationofSorelwith French revolutionary syndicalism ingeneral. JacquesJulliard,forexample, argued compellingly that Sorel wasnot only a dissidentwith regards to orthodox Marxism and socialism, butalso within theranks of the syndicalists themselves. Never more thanan intellectualoutsider to theactual syndicalist movement, a solitaire, Sorel isnotto besubstituted forthegeneralsyndicalisttendency ordoctrine. Tus,theattempt to categorically provea link to syndicalism via thefgure

of Sorel and his disciples is debatable (Julliard 1984: 8589). Be thatasitmay, and although I fully subscribeto Julliardsadmonitionthatahandfulof intellectualsoughtnotto stand foravastsocialmovement,thegreatusefulnessof Sorelsthoughtforthefascistscannotbedisputed.Whether appropriated or misappropriated, his ideas proved seminalforthefascistproject. Here, Sternhellisonsafeground. I would there-fore proceed from the terms he suggested, accepting Sorels objectiveproto-fascism. YetI willattemptto understand thereasonsbehind thefascistenthusiasm forSorel: whatprecisely wasitinhisteachingsthatso stimulated Mussoliniand hiscompanions? My aim, inotherwords,willbe to inquire whether this incontestable Sorelian contribution tofascist ideology could indeed be described as one of a revolutionary

opposition to thebourgeoisie, to liberalism and to capitalism. Doesitindeed testify to theoriginally leistthrustof fascism, to thefactthatthegrowth of fascistideology, inSternhellswords(1986: 119), wasthe chief manifestation of the tremendous dicu lty that socialismexperienced inresponding to thechallengeof capitalism?

Letusconsider, to startwith, thequestionof socialism turning demo-cratic, which allegedly signifed aclear-cuttriumph for thebourgeoisorderand theforcesof conservatism. Sternhelldid notonly makethispointacornerstoneof histheory, onnumerousoccasionsemphasizingthe triumph of thebourgeoisieoversocialism throughdemocracy; hedid this, moreover, expressly inSorelsname. To Sorel, heclaimed, the


9/33


Dreyfus Aair represented an enormous hoax; the proletariat hadonceagainbeen deceived by its political leaders into becoming thebourgeoisies watchdog, unwittingly rescuing its ownexploiters, itsownoppressors. Givensuch shamelessmanipulation, Sorelcameto asimple conclusion: sincedemocracy and thebourgeoisieareinsepa-

rableand sincedemocracy is themosteectiveoensiveweapon thebourgeoisiehasinvented, democracy hasto beoverthrowninordertodestroy bourgeoissociety (1819). AllthisisSorelasparaphrased bySternhell. Butnow let usallow Sorelhimself to speak on thematter,from Reections on Violence:

Conservativesarenotdeceived whenthey seeincompromiseswhich leadto collective contracts, and in corporative particularism, the means ofavoiding theMarxianrevolution; butthey escapeonedangeronly to fallinto another, and they runtherisk of being devoured by ParliamentarySocialism (Sorel1972: 90).

How strangeto hearSorel, themainwitnesssummoned by therevision-ist prosecution to implicate socialism, providing decisive evidence torefuteitscase! Farfrom sharing theconvictionthatliberaldemocracyhad become. . . a veritable citadel of conservatism (Sternhell 1986:85) and thatdemocracy wassimply aswamp inwhich socialism hadbecomebogged down (Sternhell1994: 24), Sorel insisted that it wassocialism thatwasdevouring, no less, itsconservativeantagonists, andthatparliamentsweretheseatof theirreverentbanquet. Farfrom see-ing democracy asalethalweaponinbourgeoishands, Sorelrepeatedlydecried theweaknessand stupidity of thebourgeoisiewhich, for fearof revolutionand aviolentclash with thesocialists, allowsitself to beintimidated and extorted by thedemocratic socialists. Jaurs perniciousmethodsof democratic socialism, argued Sorel(1972: 85), supposeanentirel

y disl

ocate

d midd

le-class

societ

yri

ch classes

who havelost

all

sentimentof theirclassinterest. How dierentindeed isthisfrom thevanquishing, sly bourgeoisie, manipulating theproletariatatwillwhichSternhells Sorelwasloathing? Admittedly, Soreldid considertheDreyfusAairanenormoushoax, butagainstthegulliblebourgeoisie. Forthatreason, hespeculated (86) onagreatextensionof proletarianviolence,which would maketherevolutionary reality evidentto themiddle-classand would disgustthem with thehumanitarianplatitudeswith whichJaurs lulls them to sleep. Clearly, therefore, Sorel doesnot considerJaursthebourgeoisieswatchdog, asSternhellwould haveit; inSorelseyes, thesocialistleaderlooksmuch morelikeawolf insheepsclothing,orasnakehypnotizing itsprey, lulling and thendevouring.


10/33

196 chapter our

Similarly, Sternhellasserted thattheliberalorderwasdoing fnenotmerely politically, having domesticated the socialist opposition, butalso economically, with capitalism prospering in an unprecedentedfashion. Tiswasunderscored aspartof theclaim thattherevolution-ary Sorelianswerefrustrated by thefactthatcapitalism did notweaken

and, given the failureof Marxism to produce the longed fordemoli-tionof capitalism, soughtalternativewaysof bringing itdown. InTeBirth of Fascist Ideology, forexample, itwasargued thatthecapitalisteconomy . . . was inexcellentshape, and had shown itself capableofadapting to all conditionsof production, thus forcing the dissidentswho were determined to destroy bourgeois society to forgeanew,antimaterialist form of socialism which would artifcially ignite theclassstrugglewith recourseto theirrationalpowerof myths: Tiswasthevery originalsolutionSorelproposed forovercoming and supersed-ing thecrisisof Marxism (Sternhell1994: 2324).15YetSorelhimselfdid notintheleastsharethisappreciationof economic prosperity andcapitalistascendancy. Quitetheoppositeistrue: hetirelessly complained

about the fact that capitalism, forced to compromise with socialism,was losing itsmomentum and entering aphaseof dismaying stagna-tion. Sorelsstarting point is theassumption that theWesternworld,underthecombined eectof ademocratic socialism and aweakened,anemic middle class which cannot defend capitalism, has enteredinto a phase of economic decadence, a term which he repeats onnumerousoccasions. Undersuch conditionsthegrowth of capitalismisseverely hindered, and therulesof the liberaleconomy aresystem-atically violated: Parliamentary Socialism would liketo combinewiththemoralists, theChurch, and thedemocracy, with thecommonaimof impending the capitalist movement; and, in view of middle-classcowardice, that would not perhapsbe impossible (Sorel 1972: 93).

Similarly, according to Sorel, Jaurssaw thatthisupper-middleclass

15 Or, to thesameeect:Tis. . . point is an important one. Toward the middle of the last decade of thenineteenth century therebegan in Europeand particularly in Germany andFrancea period of rapid economic growth, and this situation contributed tothestagnationof orthodox Marxism and to theemergence, inFranceand Italy,of thetwo characteristic formsof revisionism . . . Reformism and Soreliansyndi-calism werethustheconsequenceof theideologicalinadequacy of Marxism andits inability to providearealistic theoreticalresponseto thequestionsraised bythenew economic situation. Hence, theradicalism represented by revolutionarysyndicalism resulted notfrom aneconomic crisisbutfrom asituationof relativeprosperity (Sternhell1986: 267).


11/33


wasterribly ignorant, gapingly stupid, politically absolutely impotent; herecognized thatwith peoplewho understand nothing of theprinciplesof capitalist economics it is easy to contrivea policy of compromiseonthebasisof anextremely broad socialism (85).

In economic terms, Sorel consistently speaks like an advocate of

laissez faire who rises against the bourgeoisie precisely since it hasneglected itseconomically liberaldutiesand fatally acquiesced indilut-ing capitalism.16Sorelwasthusnotso much anenemy of capitalism, ashewasanenemy of aweak capitalism, givento seeking compromiseswith parliamentary socialism which breed a kind of mixed, decadenteconomy. Forclassical19th century capitalism, by contrast, precedingthe democratic fall, he felt unreserved admiration, precisely from aprofessedly Marxist pointof view:

Temiddleclasswith which Marx wasfamiliarinEngland wasstill. . .animatedby their conquering, insatiable, and pitiless spirit, which had characte-rized atthebeginning of moderntimesthecreatorsof new industries. . .[W]e should alwaysbear in mind this similarity between the capitalist

typeand the warrior type; it was for very good reasons that men whodirected gigantic enterpriseswerenamed captains of industry. Tistypeisstillfound today inallitspurity intheUnited States: therearefoundthe indomitableenergy, theaudacity based ona justappreciationof itsstrength, thecold calculationof interests, which arethequalitiesof greatgeneralsand greatcapitalists(89).

Tisshowshow misconceived wasWeberscontention(1964: 13) thatfascism shared with socialism anoppositionto liberalism defned onthe economic plane as the application of competitive laissez- faire.With regards to Sorel, who for Weber is quite an importantfgure,this is entirely wrong, for he infnitely preferred laissez faire to thewatered-down capitalism of the20th century. In fact, Sorelsespousal

of abellicoseworking-classstance, which rejectsallcompromiseswiththebourgeoisie, wasintimately bound with thisstrangepredilection, onthepartof aself-proclaimed socialist, forliberaleconomics. Oneof thefunctions of proletarian violence was to shake thebourgeoisie fromitsstupor, encourageitto rebualleconomic advancesonthepartof

16 Nor is thestandard liberalcomplaint from thepointof view of the tax payerlacking, theonewho hasto fnancethesocialreformswhich thestatesocialists, aidedby fnancecapital, bring about. Sorel(1972: 222) disgustedly referred to Clemenceauwho, replying to Millerad, told him that in introducing thebill to establish old agepensions, without concerning himself with where the money was to come from, hehad notacted asastatesmannorevenasaresponsibleperson.


12/33

198 chapter our

thedemocratic socialistsand thusallow capitalism to regainitsformerindomitableenergy. Tisallocatesto theworking classthesurprisingtask of restoring thegloriesof capitalism. Sorel(1972: 90) asks: how canthesyndicalistshopeto giveback to themiddleclassanardorwhichisspent? And answers: it ishere that therleof violence inhistory

appears to usassingularly great, for itcan, inan indirectmanner, sooperateonthemiddleclassasto awakenthem to asenseof theirownclass sentiment. In fact, in view of the pervasiveness of thisnotion,onecannothelp wondering if thiswasnotthemainfunctionof work-ing-classmilitancy asenvisioned by Sorel, overand aboveany putativeboostto theprospectsof therevolution. I provideacoupleof furtherexamples: Proletarian violence. . . can compel the capitalist class toremainfrm intheindustrialwar; if aunited and revolutionary prole-tariatconfrontsarich middleclass, eagerforconquest, capitalistsocietywould havereached itshistoricalperfection (92). Sorel(91) speculatesthat, if itwillbepossibleto bring hometo theemployersthefactthatthey havenothing to gainby workswhich promotesocialpeace, orby

democracy, thentherewould besomechancethatthey may getback apartof theirenergy, and thatmoderateorconservativeeconomicsmayappearasabsurd to them asthey appeared to Marx. To Marx? SurelySorel would havebetter said to Smith, Burke, Malthus or any otherthinkerof classicalpoliticaleconomy? By getting capitalism back onitsfeet, theworking classwillnotonly havereinvigorated productionandguaranteed thevalidity of Marxstheories, itwillalso havesecured thefutureof civilization, rescued itfrom sinking into barbarism:

Everything may besaved, if theproletariat, by theiruseof violence, man-age to . . . restore to the middle class something of its formerenergy. . . .Proletarianviolence. . .appearsthusasavery fneand very heroic thing;it is at the service of the immemorial interests of civilization; it isnot

perhaps themostappropriatemethod of obtaining immediatematerialadvantages, butitmay savetheworld from barbarism (98).

Tisconcernformiddle-classregenerationand forthepristinestrengthof capitalism isnot a cursory featurebut a crimson thread runningthrough Sorelsthought, anti-bourgeois, anti-liberal, and anti-capitalistthough itmay be. Itisthusnotdicultto perceive, and commentatorshaveinfactnotoverlooked it. Jeremy Jennings(1999: x), forexample,correctly observed thattheinterpretationthatunderpinsmuch of theeconomic argumentof Reections on ViolenceisthatMarxism isaformof Manchesterianism (i.e. classicalliberaleconomics). Yetforhistorians


13/33


whose argument hinges on Sorel having been aferce revolutionaryopponentof thebourgeoisieand of capitalism, thisperforcebecomesinvisible, as in the case of Weber, or present-absent, in Sternhell. AllWebersaw wasadamant, if maverick, socialism. Hethusreversed Sorelspositionby stating that he was reacting against a society which was

becoming increasingly bourgeois. Sternhell, forhispart, did notignorethisaspect. But he was forced to keep it in impossible subordinationto histhesisof Soreliananti-capitalism, acomplicated maneuverthatbore the most striking paradoxesand ights of narrative logic. Tus,aer making Sorelian ultra-leism and opposition to thebourgeoisiethe premise of his studies, and indeed the very claim which lendsthem arevisionistand iconoclastic valueagainsttheold and allegedlymisguided materialistic notions, Sternhell in fact introduced evidenceseverely undercutting hisowntheoreticalconstruct. Inhisearlierworks,especially inNeither Right nor Lef, thepro-capitalism of Soreland hisfollowers isalmost completely absent. I stress theword almost withpurpose, foronrareoccasions Sternhellrevealed himself to beaware

of thecapitalistaliationof theSorelians, and yetseemed disinclinedto acknowledge the proper theoreticaland ideological import of thisfact. Considerthefollowing passage, from the1988 introductionto theHebrew translationof Neither Right nor Lef. Here, theanti-capitalismof fascistand proto-fascistideologiesisstated intermsthatcannotbemoreemphatic, and placed atthevery ideologicalnucleusaround whichtheirdierentvariantsrevolve:

Anti-Marxism, anti-capitalism and anti-liberalism are the commondenominatorof all variantsof thisrebellion, and wellexpressitsessence:thenegationof materialism.

So it cameabout that dierent schools of thought, in some respectsstanding farapartfrom each otherbutunited inrejecting the liberal order,

formed akind of crownaround thehard coreof fascistthought(Sternhell1988b: 25; emphasesadded).

It is thusplainly enough impressed upon thereader thatall fascismis both anti-liberal and anti-capitalist, a presupposition which willhenceforth underpinthediscussion. And yet, sporadically, remarkablegapsopenup, ineectoverruling thisvery premise. Forexample, onpage261 of thesameedition, Sternhellseesftto pointoutafacthardlycompatiblewith his own theoretical guidelines. Hewrites: Here it isnecessary to clarify akey pointfortheunderstanding of thesocialandeconomic system of Europeanfascism: thefascistsneverobjected either


14/33

200 chapter our

to privateproperty or. . . to theideaof proftasthemotorof economicactivity. One cannotbut wonderwhy this clarifcation is undertakenprecisely here, so lateinthebook, ratherthan, forexample, intheveryintroduction; is theacceptanceof property and proftamerenuance,anaerthought, which canberandomly mentioned? And shortly aer-

wards, thisclarifcation assumesevensharpercontours; suddenly, thereaderisinformed thatthefascistregimeisinfactnotonly based onacompromisewith capitalism and theacceptanceof itsprinciples, butthatitalso meansto perpetuatethesystem (263).17So whatsitto be?If fascistswere invariably anti-capitalist how could they beinvolvedatthesametimeinnothing lessthantheperpetuation of capitalism?And isitmeaningfulto introduceasrejecting theliberalorder thosewho werekeenly interested inupholding capitalism? Doesnotcapital-ism form apart, and notanegligibleone, of such order?

If, in Neither Right nor Lef, such admissions of the pro-capitalistessenceof fascism areconfned to random, timid concessions, relegatedto thedepthsof thetext, inSternhellsnextmajorstudy, Te Birth of

Fascist Ideology, they claim acentralplace. Already attheintroduction,and then recurrently throughout the text, the fact is underlined thatSorelianism and proto-fascism were actually anti-liberal only in thepoliticalsense, and thatthey did notrepeat, notchallengecapitalism.I sampleafew instances: Sorel, itisasserted wasproclaiming theper-petualvalidity of capitalism, developing atheory of moraland spiritualrevolutionthatwould failto touch thebasesof capitalism (Sternhell1994: 21). TeSoreliansareunambiguously associated with theliberaleconomy and with Manchesterianeconomics (22), which recognizethelawsof capitalisteconomicsashaving apermanentvalue (25). Itisfurtherasserted thatSoreliansand liberists(theItalianterm forfreemarketers), wereincompleteagreementonthemostextremeprin-

ciplesof economic liberalism (45). And theauthorgoesonto stressthisfundamentalaspectof Sorelianthought: therevolutionary struggledependsonamarketeconomy; itisdetermined by themostabsoluteeconomic liberalism. . . . But, at the same time, Sorel advocated thedestructionof politicalliberalism (4546). Tese, indeed, areremark-ablestatementsand theliberalanity of proto-fascistthoughtbecomesunmistakableinSternhellsexpositioninanobjective, factualsense, asopposed to thehistoriansthesis, anexpositionwhich isthereforeoen

17 Cf. theEnglish editionof thebook (Sternhell1986: 199201).


15/33


highly instructive. Te evidence doesnot point to a new socialismbutto anew liberalism, resulting, precisely, from aliberalsplitbetweenpolitics and economics. Consider the following quotation thebookincludes, from Arturo Labriola, theimportantsyndicalisttheoretician,who exclaimed in1905: A classliberalism! Tatswhatsyndicalism is!

(22). Or the judgment pronounced by another important syndicalistthinker, Enrico Leone, also cited inthebook (1478), thatworking-classsocialism needs to becomean integral liberalism, whereby politicalequality would befnally attained by allowing the mechanism of themarketto operatewithoutany sortof politicalintervention!

And yet, thenarrative continues to vacillate; the historian, that is,doesnotconsideritnecessary to revisehisexplanatory framework, inagreement with theabundantevidence of the pro-capitalistand eco-nomically liberalconvictionsof theproto-fascistsand thefascists. Teystillremain, forhim, ferventopponentsof thebourgeoisorder, staunchanti-liberalsand indeed, anti-capitalists, aswhen, inconclusionof thefrstchapteronSorel, thefollowing istortuously armed:

Te fate of civilization and not that of the proletariat or thenationpreoccupied Sorel. . . . . Forthatreasonthisrevolutionnevertouched thefoundations of capitalist economy. Sorels anticapitalism was limitedstrictly to thepolitical, intellectual, and moralaspectsof the liberalandbourgeoissystem; henevertried to questionthefoundations, principlesand competitivemechanismsof thecapitalisteconomy (9091).

Buthow cansomeonebedefned asanti-capitalistwho doesnottouchthecapitalist foundations? You cannot, asanIndiansaying goes, takeone part of a fowl for cooking and leave the other part to lay eggs.Moreover, such admittancethatSoreland hisdiscipleswerenot inter-ested in ousting capitalism, still falls short of fully facing up to theimplicationsof such insights. For it is inaccurateto say thatSoreldidnot touch the foundationsof capitalism; hecertainly did touch them,hedid puthis intellectualmusclepowerbehind them, but inorder toprop capitalism up. Tis is a subtlebut signifcantnuance: Sorel wasnot some cultural critic, too starry-eyed to notice the economy, tooabsorbed inquestionsof moralsand culturaldynamicsto takestock ofthematerialistic, economic domainand therefore, allegedly, limiting hiscritique strictly to the political, intellectual, and moralaspectsof theliberal and bourgeois system. Far from it: civilization and morals, inSorel, arepredicatedon capitalism. He thusactively assistsand wishesto rejuvenate market society, resolve its prolonged crisis, rekindle the


16/33

202 chapter our

entrepreneurialmiddleclass. Tereisafundamentaleconomic motiva-tionbehind Sorelianism inboth Sorel and his followers, which is atleast as importantas themoraland cultural considerations. Indeed, ifSorelconcentrateshisattack only onthepolitical, intellectual, and moralaspectsof theliberaland bourgeoissystem thisisprecisely becausesuch

aspectshejudged to beworking againstthecapitalistfoundations.Tisconcernfortheeconomic baseSorel, inthatrespect, did appear

to have internalized Marxs lessons, albeit to turn them against theMarxistprojectbelies the idealistic (in the philosophical-theoreticalsenseof the term) eortby Sternhellto isolatesomestrictly cultural-philosophical focal point of fascism, from which all else allegedlyfollowed. Te insistence on the primacy of ideology is of paramountimportanceforSternhellsinceitunderpinsthebid to refutethetradi-tionalclassanalysis, which positsthecentrality of socialand economicconicts. Terecanbeno doubt, Sternhellavows(3), thatthecrystal-lizationof ideology preceded thebuildup of politicalpowerand laid thegroundwork forpoliticalaction. And atthecentreof thisideology, itis

furtherargued, wasno tangiblesocioeconomic interest, butaconcernfarmoreillusive: anti-materialism: Atitsmost fundamentalessence,fascist ideology constitutes a revolt against materialism (Sternhell1988a: 9).18Notso; forSternhellhimself ineectconcedesthecentralityof economic concerns. Atonepointinachapterwrittentogetherwiththeco-authorMario Sznajderonecanevenread abouttheprimacyof economics intheworldview of theItalianSorelians(Sternhell1994:143). How could such economic primacy, no less, bereconciled and fnditsplacewithintheanti-materialistic coreof fascism? Ideology, thus,may have preceded politicalaction, but it itself had been precededby economics. Terealcausalsequence, if anything, thusappearstohavebeenthefollowing: 1) economic concernforthehealth of capitalism

which thenproduced 2) aproto-fascistideologycovering such tropesasthecrisisof civilization, myth, violence, etc., which thenleadsto 3)politicalactionnamely, fascism.

We canbegin to appreciate why there existed mutual admirationbetween the Italian advocate of free trade, Pareto, and the Frenchanti-capitalist, die-hard revolutionary, Sorel. Teirantitheticalpoliticalpositionsnotwithstanding, in terms of what they actually wanted to

18 Or, from Te Birth of Fascist Ideology: Initsessence, Fascistthoughtwasarejec-tionof thevalueknowninthecultureof thetimeasmaterialism (Sternhell1994: 7).


17/33


see socio-economically materialized, there is surprisingly a profoundharmony. Both wished to see a strong and revitalized capitalism,unburdened by socialistic demandsand compromises, amiddle classrecuperating itsviriledeterminationand fghting socialism with allitspowers, and, on the other side, a working class making no demands

whatsoeveronthecapitaliststate, being perfectly satisfed with what-evertheeconomic logic of capitalism iskind enough to allotit. TatPareto wished for this from an anti socialist point of view, whereasSorel had the perfectalibi of wishing for such a state of things fromaleistnay, ultraleistposition, and inorderto salvageMarxism,isatbottom asemantic dierence, nota substantialone. If we wish,wemay callParetoanultra leistand Sorelarightist liberal, withoutin the least aecting things. If two waiters oer us the same creamand cherries dessert, what does it matter if the one recommends iton account of the delicious cream, and the other onaccount of thesplendid cherries? And is this, aerall, thereal, anti-climactic sense,of being neitherrightnorle? Ordoesthedierence, perchance, lie

inthefactthatSorel, unlikePareto, ultimately wished to seethetrium-phantproletariatusher inanew world order? YetSorelsutopia, asIshallelaborateshortly, wasnotatalltheclasslesssociety traditionallydreamed of by theanti-capitalists, afreeassociationof producers, butanhierarchicalsociety where industrialproduction isbrought to stillhigher levels of eciency, and where workers are subjugated to thedemandsof productionmuch morestringently thanunderthepresent,lax system of statesocialism. And besides, given thatthemyth of thepoliticalstrikeisaboverationalorpracticalcritiqueasusually conceivedof, amerereasonto actinacertainwaynamely, rebureformsandimprovementsand notexpectanything from capitalismthere is lit-tlereasonto supposethattheproletariatwillactually beableto defeat

capitalism with such an ideological weapon, especially as it willbeconfronted with arevitalized, militant capitalism, ready to fght withall themight itpossesses. Indeed, apaltry practicalperspective, suchasEngelsadopted, willshow theworkersthe likelihood thatthey willloseall theirmaterialassetsand politicalpowerby the violent insur-rection, which standsno chanceof overcoming themilitary mightatthedisposalof thebourgeoisie. Asearly as1901, JeanJaurs, afavoritetargetof Sorelsheated polemics, embodying theanti-Marxist social-ism heso despised, wasequally clearsighted abouttheprospectsof theSorelian, go-for-brokestrategy:


18/33

204 chapter our

Tesupportersof thegeneralstrike. . .areobliged, itshould bewellreal-ized, to succeed at the rst attempt. If a general strike, once turning torevolutionary violence, fails, itwillleavethecapitalistsystem inplace, butnow armed with an implacable fury. Te fearof themanagersand alsoof a great part of themasses would set o long years of reaction. Andthe proletariat would be for a long time unarmed, crushed, enchained

(Jaurs2008: 116).Teexperienceof actualSorelian fascism issoonto establish preciselysuch balanceof forcesasforeseenby Engelsand Jaurs(befttingly, withmost Sorelianson thesideof themiddle-classstrikebreakers). So theworking-class lineof actionrecommended by Sorelwasfrom thestartlikely to result in a loss of all the materialist and social gains of theworkersand bring them back to the point where they started, facingacapitalism asruthlessand asuntainted asitwasatthebeginning ofthe19th century. Butwhatof that loss, if proletarianmartyrdom willpreventcivilizationfrom sinking into thebarbarism of economic deca-denceand universal happiness? Undeniably, one can construe thisasattestin

gt

ot

he

prin

ci

ple

d anti

-materialis

m oft

he

Sorelians

an

dt

heir

aloof contempt forworldly gains; theproblem is thatsuch injunctionto snubmaterialvaluewasconfned to theproletariatwhereascapitalistproductionwascertainly notmeantto shueoitsmortalcoil.

It is understood that Sorels recurrent claim to represent the realspirit of Marxism against its annulment by professional socialistswas utterly unfounded. In 1880, Marx atly rejected the doctrinaireoppositionof Guesdeand Lafargue to allreformism and their insist-encethatonly aproletarianrevolution isa feasiblestrategy, calling itrevolutionary phrase-mongering and famously telling Lafarguethat, ifthatbeMarxism, thencequily adecertaincestquemoi, jenesuispasMarxiste [whatiscertain, isthatI myself am notaMarxist] (as

quoted inEvans1975: 48). Tiswould apply with avengeanceto Sorel,who notonly rejected any improvementsintheworkerslotascounter-revolutionary, buttopped thatowith aninsistencethatsocialism mustactively contributeto theperfecthealth of itsclassantagonist, seeto itthat it isbroughtup from itskneesand bouncesagainwith renewedvigoraround thering, beforeitcould punch him downdefnitively. Andif Soreladmired Leninasamanwho demonstrated theveracity of histheoriesregarding theadvantageof violentstruggle, thiswasapurelyone-sided aair, asLeninscharacterizationof Sorelastheprofessorof confusion demonstrates. And Leninsfollowing words(1920) seemalmostas if they werewritten inanswer to Sorel, and certainly apply


19/33


to him: theLe Communistshaveagreatdealto say inpraiseof usBolsheviks. Onesometimesfeelsliketelling them to praiseuslessandto try to getabetterknowledgeof theBolsheviks tactics.

Aninstructiveconfrmationof thefactthatSoreliantacticsdid notconstitute a menace from a state-capitalist point of view, is unlikely

furnished by acontemporary observerwho wasquitefearful of syndical-ism, namely ParetosgreatItaliancounterpartincontriving elitetheo-ries, Gaetano Mosca. ForMosca(1939: 480), writing intheaermathof the First World Warand on the verge of fascism, the syndicalistperil isa source of great concern; indeed, he considers it the worstpossiblescenario inpost-WarItaly. Crucially, however, syndicalism isnotunderstood intheSoreliansenseof stringentworking-classasceti-cism and anobdurateboycotting of parliament (nor in the form of apotentialfascisttakeover). Tewholedangerof syndicalism liesintheeventuality thatitwillforcefully interveneintheparliamentary system,indeed legally hijack thesystem and monopolizeit, forthepurposeofimposing aclassicalmodeof statesocialism:

Weneed notspend many wordsindescribing thedangersof the. . . syn-dicalist, or unionist, solution. A chamber possessing sovereign powersandparticipatinginlawmakingasthelegalmouthpieceof classsyndicatewould supply thebestpossiblebasis fortheorganizationof sovereigntyintermediatebetweentheindividualand thestate, which isperhapsthemost serious threat to society . . . By means of their representatives, theunions themselves can. . . paralyzeevery eort of the state to free itselfof its tutelage. . . . [I]t isnot far-fetched to assume that the syndicalistchamber. . . could, by marshalling a compact and disciplined vote, exertgreat inuence upon elections to chambers constituted on the presentbasisof individualrepresentation(4889; emphasesadded).

A judiciousand knowledgeablepoliticalobserverasMoscathusidenti-

festhesyndicalistperilprecisely initslegal, parliamentary, politicalanddemocraticpotential. Notaword iswasted ontheprospectof avaguegeneralstrike, theutopianpossibilitywhich Mosca, surely, would haveheartily welcomedthattheunionsshallsubstituteahazy, ultra-leistmyth, for their tangible political power. Moscalike Pareto, and likeSorelseesavery potentdemocratic socialism and abourgeoiscapital-ism indirestraits.19

19 In passing, it should benoted how Mosca (like Pareto, as discussed above), inexpressing such anxieties, betrayed the hollowness of his own polemical contentionthat elites always rule and hence democracy is impossible, in eect conceding thatdemocracy isafeasibleoption, indeed animminentdanger.


20/33

206 chapter our

Sorels Campaign against the Bourgeoisie . . . and the PolynesianSavages

Tefundamentalobjectivedisagreementswith Marxism notwithstand-ing, itstillremainsinteresting thatSorelconverted to Marxism inthefrstplacewhich hedid athestartof the1890sand feltananity

with Marx, to thepointof seeing himself ascontinuing hisreallegacy.By thesametoken, the factstillneedsto beaccounted forthat, beingatbottom an economic liberal, Sorelnonetheless departed from theliberalmainroad and did notbecomeaconventional, straightforwardapologist for marketeconomics, which would perhaps havebeen themostnaturaloutcomeforamanof hiscredo. Teanswerto thisratherperplexing ideologicalchoiceshould not, atany rate, be conceived intermsof cynicism laSpengler, who moreorlessconsciously assumedthesocialistidentity inorderto try and destroy socialism from within.Sorelwasnotacynic oraninfltrator, so to speak, to thesocialistranks.HisMarxism wasas farasonecanjudge, orratherintuitsincerely

felt

,an

dt

his

is

confr

me

db

y his

late

praise

of Lenin

whi

chen

ds

wit

hthepassionatedenunciationof theliberaldemocracies, equally heartfelt.A comparableclear-cutand overtendorsementby Sorelof fascism andof Mussolini isnot available, despite some second-hand testimonies;onthecontrary, thereissomeevidencethathelamented thepowerofthe fascistsevenasheacknowledged and was impressed by itandthrough itssocialdemagoguery saw aforceemployed to break social-ism, with theconsentof thebourgeoiselites.20

Itappearsasif, inultra-leistsocialism and, later, Bolshevism, Sorelenvisaged, no matterhow paradoxically, aform of rescuingthekerneland theidealsof economic liberalism, albeitnotnecessarily underthebourgeoisrule. Shlomo Sand correctly characterized Sorelasaliberal

conservative oddly attracted to Marxism.21

Tis should be comple-mented by therealizationthatSorelsMarxism remained oddly embed-ded inliberalism and conservatism. Forheneverhad to renouncehiseconomic liberalism in order to espouse Marxism. On the contrary:given the fact that classical 19th century liberalism seemed to decayirretrievably and disgracefully interbreed with statealias: ocial,parliamentary, democratic, professionalsocialism, which Sorelso detested, thereappeared littlehope thatcapitalism willberescued

20 SeeCharzat1983: 4142.21 Sand 1993: 89.


21/33


by theemasculated bourgeoisie. Tiswasprecisely thedreaded crisisofcivilization, thechronic phaseof economic decadence. YetinMarxism,understood ingeniously asa form of laissez faire, Sorel envisaged anunlikely solutionto thispredicament, away of halting thedisintegrationof the liberal economy, frstby compelling thebourgeoisie to regain

its heroic qualities, and second, if syndicalism would eventually win,by heralding an era of heroic industry, motivated by idealism and afanatic commitment to an ever-growing increase of production. Teroleof trueMarxism asasurrogatecapitalism isplainly enough stated,forexample, inIntroduction to the Modern Economy:

Te Marxists see things dierently [from the advocates of state social-ism], sincethey areconvinced thatsocialism doesnothaveasitspremisethestopping ortheslowing downof therevolutionary movementof themoderneconomy, butratherthatitshould supplantcapitalism oncethelatterisno longercapableof conducting such movementatasucientlyrapid pace(Sorel1903: 112).

Marxism was thus conceived notas theantithesis to, butas the per-fection of, capitalism. It is equally telling that, evenas Sorel praisedLeninasa hero of socialism, heurged him not to discard the legacyof capitalism:

In order to give to Russian socialism a basis which a Marxist (suchas Lenin) may regard as secure, a stupendous eort of intelligence isrequired: thelattermustbeinapositionto demonstrateto thedirectorsof productionthevalueof certainrulesderived from theexperiencesof ahighly developed capitalism. . . . InorderthatRussiansocialism becomeastableeconomy, itisnecessary thattheintelligenceof therevolutionariesbevery nimble, very wellinformed, and very freefrom prejudices(Sorel1972: 2812; italicsadded).

We

can

on

ce

more

a

ppre

ciate

how Sorel

di

dn

ot

move

t

ot

he

far

-le

because he despaired of socialism living up to expectations; heneverhad any belief insocialism, or, more correctly, never really desired toseesocialism realized. LikeNietzschewho greatly inuenced him, heenvisioned socialism as a universal stagnation, the dystopian rule ofmediocrity, theobliterationof greatart, heroism and thewarriorvirtues,amid abarbaric world of consumerhedonism. Tatsocialism mightprocure the massesa higher standard of living, as one would put ittoday, asafeand comfortablelife, with lesswork and moreleisureandgains, wasforhim anargumentagainstsuch anorder. Hisstarting point,rather, wastheexasperationatthedeadlock of (economic) liberalism,


22/33

208 chapter our

from which hehoped to escapeviaMarxism-Manchesterianism. Inthewordsof MichelCharzat(1983: 47), Sorelpreferstheruleof aliberalbourgeoisie to thatof statesocialism sincehewasa classical liberalandrevolutionary inpolitics.

Mutatis mutandis, this last observation lends considerablesupport

to ourpivotalargumentconcerning thesplitof economic and politicalliberalism. Forwhereas themajority of the liberalsof thetime fearedtheconsequencesof radicalpolitics, democratic aswellasrevolution-ary, for a capitalist economy, Sorel shared only the former concern,namely with respect to parliamentary socialism. By contrast, he wel-comed working-classintransigenceasaforceforeconomic liberalism.Herein is a vital insight into the evasive substance of his ideologicalstance. Hence, Sorelsanti-materialistrevisionof Marxism wasnot,ultimately, a theoretical construction meant to succour socialism,but to succour liberalism; it is strange, butnonetheless true, that inultra-leism Sorel saw a way of ensuring a renaissance of the era ofthecaptainsof industry againsttheageof thepassive-nihilistic last

man, prophesized by Nietzsche. Tisalso shedslightonSorelsever-present culturalattacks on thebourgeoisie, which Sternhell makes agreat deal of. Attentively read, however, such attacks usually revealthemselves to bedirected ratheratmasssociety and culture. It isnotexaggerated to say that thebourgeoisie in Sorels use is generally acodename for the masses. What he lampoons has very little do withbourgeois civilization insofaras it is capitalistic, in fact targeting thevery oppositetendency, therenunciationof capitalistproduction, andtheperceived sliding back into primitivism. Tis idiosyncratic useofterms, whereby capitalistproductionislauded asworking class whilemassconsumptionisvilifed asbourgeois, isillustrated inthefollow-ing passage. Sorel, drawing ananalogy betweenthedevelopmentof the

Benedictineordersand themoderneconomic world, describesthewaythatmembersof such ordershaveceased to beworkersgrouped inaquasi-capitalist workshop to become bourgeois, retired from worldaairs and dedicated to thecooperationof consumptionwhich suitseverybody. Ananalogy onwhich hefurtherelaborates:

Tisperversion of capitalism, which ceases to be industrial to return toitsusuriousorigins, hasagreatimportanceinhistory sinceitmarksthemomentinwhich manabandonsthenotionpainfully acquiredthatheisaproducer, inorderto returnto theideaof thePolynesiansavages, who

view inmanaboveallaconsumer, who worksonly accidentally. Itisthehonorof Marxism to havefounded all itssociological investigationson


23/33


theconsiderationof productionand thusto havemadeclearthatanabyssseparatesserioussocialism from allthebourgeoiscaricatureswhich takeasthebasisof theirtheoriesthedistributionof richesand consumption(Sorel1903: 125).

And whilethe indigenousPolynesiansmightpossibly bedescribed as

savages, particularly inearly 20th century Europeanterms, surely onlythemostexibleof taxonomieswould classify them togetherwith themodernbourgeois? Infact, Sorelsimagery of savagery and of barbarismwasgraed onto arepudiationof themodern, complacent, and pleasure-seeking masses, quiteinlinewith contemporary critiquesof massculture,as elaborated by countless middle-class theorists. InTe Illusions ofProgress, forexample, Soreladvancesaclassicalcultural-pessimist anal-ysisof theway modernmasscultureretrogradesinto savagery by cateringto thelowesttastesand preferring entertainment overartwhich edu-cates orwhich armspower (theNietzscheananity isevident):

Itisthereforenotimpossiblethatthefutureof refned societiesimmersedindecadencewillresembletheremotepastof thesavages. . . . Teartsthatentertainaretheonly oneswhich thesavagestruly know; they manifestatasteattimesquiteremarkableintheirdances, theirsongs, theircostumes,buttheirmagicalnesteggs[magots] appearto usprodigiously grotesque.Inthecourseof civilization, mendidnotceaseto inventnew waysof amusingthemselves, and it oen happened that the educational arts and thosewhich should havearmed powerwere corrupted under the inuenceof theideasgenerated by theentertaining arts(Sorel1911: 31819).

Tiscritiqueof masssociety also featured importantly inthewritingsof Sorelsclosestdisciple, douard Berth, who accused ocialsocialismof arousing intheworkersthemostunhealthy sentiments: atastefordestruction, anappetiteforenjoymentand well-being, anaspiration. . . tobe rid of anything that constrains passions, instincts, and vices (as

quoted by Sternhell 1994: 121.) Notice the way that the supposedlyultra-revolutionary Sorelians and preachers of violence, censure pre-cisely theworkerstastefordestruction. Giventhatmuch of theassaultonbourgeoisculture isactually directed attheworking (and playing)masses, itmakessensethatBerth should havefound theactualFrenchbourgeoisie, allegedly in the process of rediscovering itsspiritualandbellicosevalues, worthy of admirationand bedrivento seek analliancewith them rather than with the hedonistic workers. Te bourgeoisrenaissance, Sternhellinformsus, discussing Berthsviews(1994: 122),took placenotonly independently of theproletarianrenaissance, whichneverhappened, butalso despitetheproletariatsslow butcontinuous


24/33

210 chapter our

slideinto degeneracy. . . . [T]heroleshad beenreversed: thebourgeoisiehad snatched thetorch of therevolutionoutof thetremuloushand ofthe proletariat. Tenew force for progress was thebourgeoisie. Tisisvery instructive: therealcarriersof theanti-bourgeoisrevoltarethebourgeoisie, and theirultra-radicalmarch ischecked and hampered by

the proletariat. And yetSternhellnoticesno conictbetween thedataheassemblesand hisgeneralinterpretivematrix, thatconsistently positsthe Soreliansasanti-bourgeois. Tis ties into anotherquestion: if therootof fascistideology isSorel, whatwereSorelsownroots? JustMarx?Wasnthedeeply inuenced by thethoughtof bourgeois, anti-socialist,anti-democratic fguresamong them notafew importantliberals, orliberal-conservativessuch asProudhon(who was, besidesMarx, Sorelsstrongestsocialist inuence), Tocqueville, Taine, Renan, Bergson, LeBon, Nietzsche, William James, vonHartmann, Pareto and Croce? Tispartiallistof Sorelsintellectualsourcesand interlocutorsshould initselfsuceto castheavy doubtsabouttheallegedly anti-bourgeoischaracterof his thought.22To bear Sorels intellectualbackground inmind is to

realizethathewasintruth considerably moreindebtedintellectually,philosophically and economicallyto thebourgeois-liberalright, thanto thepro-proletarianlef. Atthebeginning of [Sorels] long march, Sternhellsymptomatically states(1994: 28), onefndsMarxism; inthevery nextpage, however, hehimself pointsoutthatintheearly 1890sSorel, by thenoverforty, wasactually anew adherentto thecause. SoMarxism, infact, wasnotSorelsfrststation. Whatismore, beforethisbelated conversionto Marxism, Sorelhad beena liberal, afactwhich isnotpointed out. Sorelwashardly theBig Bang of fascism, hardly thegreat constitutivemoment in its genesis, but merely onemore sequelinalong and intricatechainof events.

The fact that the Sorelians denigrated bourgeois (read: mass)

consumptionand fetishized proletarian (read: capitalist) production,understood notasameansof satisfying concretehumanneedsbutasanend initself, to bepursued atthecostof human, orintruth, work-ers comfort and gratifcation, is a cultural phenomenon that agreesprofoundly with theeconomic, capitalistdrivefortheaccumulationofproftforitsownsake. Teupshotof this, asinso much (proto)-fascistthought, was to elevatework into asacred activity and sentimentallysing its praises, and to see workers, too, asadmirable precisely since

22 Cf. Salvemini1969:375.


25/33


they wereindispensableinturning theidealof work into apalpableandproftablereality and inasmuch asthey didntdegenerately shirk theirsacred missionand duty. With arhetoricalsleight-of-hand, and possiblywith ameasureof self deception, thisappreciationof workhard, long,fatiguing work, asSpenglerput itcould bepromoted associalistic.

But Spengler at least acknowledged the fact that such socialism wasthevery reverseof Marxs, representing anoble, Prussianalternative,predicated onthedignityof hard work, whereasSorelascribed thisvenerationof toilto serioussocialism, genuinely Marxist, whosemeritwasallegedly to focusonproduction, asif thetruesocialistutopia, asenvisioned by Marx (1991: 9589), did not revolve precisely aroundtheoppositequestto eliminatetheyokeof forced labor: Terealm offreedom really beginsonly wherelabourdetermined by necessity andexternalexpediency ends.

Behind the superfcially ultra-leist, anti-bourgeois conception ofSorel lurked inreality aquintessential versionof thebourgeois workethic. Butthesigniferswereconveniently reversed, so now itwaspos-

sible to vex indignantagainst thebourgeois tendency of the modernmassesto shunhard work. Tus, whenlooked atclosely, Sorelsmythof thegeneralstrike, atthevery heartof hisrevisionistconception, isratheramyth ofgeneral work. Heisnotatallaeranethic of leisureand pleasure, but aer a stringent work ethic, revolving around theworkers selesssacrifcesand apassionatecommitmentto industrialprogress:

Tequestionmustbestated otherwisethanRenanputit; do thereexistamong the workmen forces. . . which could combine with the ethics ofgood work, so thatinourdays, which seem to many peopleto presagethedarkestfuture, thisethic may acquirealltheauthority necessary to leadsociety along thepath of economic progress. . . . Te ideaof thegeneral

strike. . .bendsall theenergies of the mind to that conditionnecessaryto therealizationof aworkshop carried onby freemen, eagerly seekingthebettermentof industry; wehavethusrecognized thattherearegreatresemblancesbetweenthesentimentsaroused by theideaof thegeneralstrikeand thosewhich arenecessary to bring aboutacontinued progressinmethodsof production(Sorel1972: 2478).

Such passionforwork involvesno materialgainfortheworkers; Sorelmaintains (227), for instance, that men who devote themselves tothe revolutionary cause know that they must always remain poor.He approvingly quotes Renan, saying that the soldier of Napoleonwaswellawarethathewillalwaysbeapoorman, buthe feltthatthe


26/33

212 chapter our

epic inwhich hewastaking partwould beeternal, thathewould livein the glory of France. And he thenasks (247) whether there is aneconomic epic capableof stimulating theenthusiasm of theworkers.Sorelisvery fond of drawing parallelsto theworld of industry from theworld of war, particularly from theFrench soldiersat the timeof the

revolution,23

who werefghting so wellagainsttheEuropeanCoalitionbecause they saw the cause of the revolutionas their own individualgoal, rather than a superfcial motivation externally imposed by analienating authority.Teworkers-soldiersof thefuturewould thereforesacrifcethemselvesuponthefeld of theworkshop forthegreatergloryof industry: Economic progressgoesfarbeyond theindividuallife, andprofts future generations more than those who create it (247). Teattractionof such aworkermilitia forany capitalist isnotdicult tosee, a factwhich Sorelseemed to realizealltoo well. Work and obe-dience, hesays(1903: 119), are the two columnsof theBenedictineedifce justas they areof thecapitalistedifce. StBenedicthasall theforesight of a greatboss [patron] whose concern is to guarantee the

prosperity of avastand durableenterprise. Tisobjectiveanity pro-vides the link to the fascistappropriation, whetherSorelasanauthorwould certify by such areading of histextand fnd itpleasing, ornot.No wonder, too, that Sorels ideasproved attractive in theeyes of theGerman so-called conservative revolutionaries, including people likeSchmitt, Jnger, Spengler, Hans Zehrer, Michael Freund, and so on,who were keenly interested in inculcating anaesthetical, ascetic, andquasi-religiousnotionof work.24Tisconceptionof work, which Sorelby no means invented, butwasoneof countlessbourgeois intellectu-alswho gaveexpression to it, found amemorable culmination in theinfamousmottoArbeit macht frei. Such acredo sitswellwith capitalismbutnotwith socialism whosegoalisprecisely to getfree, to thegreater

possibleextent,fromwork.25

It is important to realize that Sorels vision of economic progressinspired by thewarlike virtues, inwhich theworkerproducesdevot-

23 Less so, incidentally, from Napoleons soldiers, precisely since at his timethe ethic of personal abnegation was counterfeited by a logic of personal gain anddecorations.

24 A very usefuldiscussionof SorelsinuenceinGermanright-wing circlesintheyearsleading up to theNazitakeoverisprovided by Buckmiller(1985).

25 Richard Wolin(2003) providesanexcellentanalysisof anotherimportantfascistthinkerkeenonaccentuating thejoy of work, MartinHeidegger. I havealso discussedHeideggersquestto spiritualizework (Landa2008: esp. 120124).


27/33


edly and proudly, withoutaneyeto areward, isexpressly founded onanindividualistic, and by implicationliberal, conception:

In thewars of Liberty each soldier considered himself asan individualhaving something importantto do inthebattle, instead of looking uponhimself assimply onepartof themilitary mechanism committed to the

supremedirectionof aleader. . . . Battlesundertheseconditionscould thenno longerbelikened to gamesof chessinwhich each maniscomparableto a pawn; they became collections of heroic exploitsaccomplished byindividuals under the inuence of an extraordinary enthusiasm (Sorel1972: 239; emphasisintheoriginal).

Sorelequally emphasizes(241) thattheworking classgroupswho areeager for the general strike. . . picture the Revolution as an immenseuprising which yet may be called individualistic . . . the revolutionarySyndicalistsdesireto exalttheindividuality of thelifeof theproducer,and hecontrasts(243) thepassionateindividualism of theSyndicalists,with themeek subordinationof theworkerswho havebeeneducated bypoliticians. Here, aswell, wemustregisterthedisparity betweenSorels

original textand Sternhells paraphrasing of it. Te latter, sticking tothedictatesof theanti-liberalism matrix, insisted thattherebellionoftheproto-fascistswasingeneralunreservedly anti-individualistic, theindividualhad no valueinhimself (Sternhell1986: 33). And Sorelwascertainly nottreated asanexception:

Sorel saw individualism as the root of evil, and on thispoint heneverchanged hisopinion. Infact, hecontinued to beviolently anti-individual-istic evenwhenhehad long sinceceased to beaMarxistintheorthodoxsense. Revolutionary syndicalism was a form of anti-individualism . . .(6869).26

Read attentively, however, Sorel(much likehiscountrymanProudhon,

t

he

Galli

cs

ocialist

,t

o whom he

was

greatl

yin

debte

d),s

houl

d pr

ovi

de

amplereason to ponder the link of certainvarietiesof anarchism notsimply orevenprimarily to thelebutto theliberaltraditionaswell. Onthatpointtoo, if wetrustthetaleand nottheteller, Sternhellsexposi-tionproveshighly informative, sincewhatobjectively standsoutisnotreally thesocialism of theanarcho-syndicalism butrathertheliberismo

26 Jacques Julliard (1984: 855), in an early critique, doubted this alleged anti-individualism attributed not only to Sorel, but also to another importantfgure inSternhellsnarrative, MauriceBarrs. Julliard pointed outthe insuciency of attach-ing theepithetof anti-individualism to theauthorof theexceedingly narcissistbookTeCultof theSelf.


28/33

214 chapter our

of so many of them. Tis liberist footing of syndicalism, especially initstheoreticalmanifestations, wasilluminatingly inspected by AntonioGramsciinhisPrison Notebooks, who suggested considering to whatdegreetheoreticalsyndicalism derives. . . from theeconomic doctrinesof free tradei.e. in the last analysis from liberalism. Hence itshould

beconsidered whethereconomism, initsmostdeveloped form, isnota direct descendant of liberalism (2000; italics added).27 Such an-ity Gramsci underscored inboth ideologicalas well personal terms:Tenexusbetweenfree-tradeideology and theoreticalsyndicalism isparticularly evident in Italy, where theadmirationof syndicalists likeLanzillo & Co. for Pareto is wellknown. At the same time, Gramsciexposed theobjectiveserviceability of Soreliansyndicalism to capital-ism. Heidentifed thispliancy precisely inwhatsyndicalism subjectivelyperceived asitsmostradicalfeature, namely itsoppositionto politicalaction. Inthatcrucialrespect, Gramscijudiciously observed, theliberalmasterwasinfnitely shrewderand morepracticalthanthesyndicalistpupil. Liberaleconomics, hemaintained, isnever justasetof doctri-

naire, intransigent assumptions on thebest way an economy shouldfunction, aloof from politics. On the contrary, it isalwaysa politicalproject, striving to becomehegemonic and usethestateto implementitsprogram:

[L]aissez-faire. . . isaform of stateregulation . . . Itisadeliberatepolicy,consciousof itsownends, and not thespontaneous, automatic expres-sionof economic facts. Consequently, laissez-faire liberalism isapoliti-calprogramme, designed to change. . .astatesruling personnel, and tochangetheeconomic programmeof thestateitselfinotherwordsthedistributionof thenationalincome.

Tese lucid observations, made during the 1930s, were amply born

outse

veral

decades

later

, when

thene

o-liberal

ret

urn

to laissez-faireinEuropeand theUS wasundertakenasadistinctly politicalproject,

indeed changing thestatesruling personnel and itseconomic pro-gramme inorderto aectthedistributionof thenationalincome.28Teoreticalsyndicalism, by contrast, naively acceptstheliberaltheoreti-calseparationbetween theeconomic and thepoliticalspheresat facevalue, and hence renounces political struggle. Economic autonomy,which fortheliberalsisaconcretegoalthatmustbeobtained by way of

27 Tis is from the13th notebook, onMachiavellispolitics, writtenbetween1932and 1934. FortheItalianoriginal, seeGramsci2007, vol. 3: 158990.

28 For an insightful account of this political initiative in global perspective, seeHarvey (2005).


29/33


concerted politicalaction, wasforthesyndicalistsasacred tenet, whichshould notbecontaminated by politicalaction. Wemightsay thattheideal conditionof thepragmatic liberalsbecametheunconditional idealof the intransigent syndicalists. Hence, while an extremely ecientpolitical tool at the hands of thebourgeoisie, economism became

a debilitating and counter-productive ideology for the workers. Tecase of theoretical syndicalism, Gramsciargued (2000), is dierent.Herewearedealing with asubalterngroup, which isprevented by thistheory from everbecoming dominant. . . Itisundeniablethatinit, theindependence and autonomy of the subaltern group which it claimsto representare in fact sacrifced to the intellectual hegemony of theruling class, sinceprecisely theoreticalsyndicalism ismerely anaspectof laissez-faireliberalism.

Strikers or Strikebreakers?

As a consequence of such insights itbecomes clear that, even if we

choose

t

o goal

on

g wit

ht

he

all

-i

mportant

r

ole

as

cribe

dt

o Sorel

in

shaping fascist ideology, there isno need to automatically accept theconcomitantassumption, namely thatwith and through theauthorofReections on Violence, fascism was indeed imbued with an ideologyneitherrightnorle. Inotherwords, thatSorelhimself wasamanofparadoxes, attempting to concoctanimprobableblend of antagonisticschools of thought, doesnot prove thatfascismwassuch asynthesis,too. If indeed Sorelwasathinkerof both leand right, whatdid fas-cism take from him? Sorels leism, such as it was, was above allhis encouragement of working-class radicalism, the endorsing of thegeneralstrikeastheultimateweaponof classstruggle. Now, isthisanideologicalorpracticaltenetwhich canbeidentifed infascism, which

of all political movements, was the most uncompromising enemy ofworking-classradicalism, and thediligentbreakerof strikes, any strikes,letalonegeneralones? HenceaSorelian legacyaleist oneatanyratecannothaveplayed morethananephemeralroleinfascism. If aSorelianimprintonfascism canbeidentifed surely itisinthoseaspectsof histhoughtwhich wereright, notle? Such right-wing featureswouldincludehiscultof violence, hiscelebrationof mythsand of theirrational,hisswashbucklernotionsof heroism, hiscontemptformaterialachieve-ments, indeed particularly for workers, asabourgeois weakness, hishatred of democracy and hisconcernto emancipateproductionfrom itsburdens, and hisoppositionto socialism innearly every variantwiththenotableexceptionof socialism which isutterly committed to capi-


30/33

216 chapter our

talism. Surely, thesewerethereasonsthatSorelsteachingsweregreetedwith such enthusiasm by peoplewho should havebeendisgusted andalarmed by thenotionof thegeneralstrike.

A good exampleof thisparadox isPareto, who embraced Sorelianmyths, while consternated about the growing power of the working

classand thehelplessnessof theruling elites. Tereason forthatwassimple: working-classactivism waseverescalating inParetos Italy, afactof which hewasacutely aware.29Teworkers, hence, clearly did notneed any irrationalist theorist to show them where their interests lie,norsuggestto them theweaponof striking. Inthatregard, if Soreldidno good, hecertainly did littleharm, either. Conversely, histheoriesofmyth and theappealto theirrationalproved such anexciting novelty,becausePareto immediately recognized inthem thepromiseof changingthegroundsof workers activities, redirecting them from defending theirinterestsonto theterrainof whathecalled sentiments orresidues.Tisseemed to revealanunexpected path of escapefrom thedead-endof democracy. Now, itappeared, onecould appealto thesentimentsof

themassesto shepherd them againsttheirinterests. Insuch terms, infact, wasperceived thepeculiarattributeof thestatesman, thatof beingableto sellthemassesasocialpolicy inthebestinterestof therulers.Sorelinsisted (1972: 50) thatcontemporary myths arerevolutionary,leading men to prepare themselves fora combat which will destroytheexisting stateof things. Yetthiswasanunfounded opinionsincemyths, as Pareto and others of his class realized, can justas well, orperhapsbetter, serve to sustain theexisting order. Sorel should haveknownbetter himself, since just a few pagesbefore he had referredto Renans understanding of the irrationalas underpinning perfectlyconservativecausesthroughouthistory. Hethusspoke(4344) of theextraordinary virtuesshownby theRomanswho resigned themselvestoafrightfulinequality and who suered so much to conquertheworld,orof theGreek belief inglory which enabled aselection. . . from theswarming massesof humanity. And why should notamodernmythequally serveto reconcilethemassesto frightfulinequality, and drivethem to conquertheworld?

29 A fact, incidentally, also confrmed by Sternhell (1994: 5354), again in cleardissonance with the alleged triumph-of-liberalism matrix, supposing the peacefulcessation of the class struggle. He thus writes about the reality, inboth France andGermany during thefrstdecadeof the20th century, of unprecedented workersunrestand strike waves, bringing terrible hardship, and seeing social tensions reachingtheirclimax.


31/33


Quiteindependently of Sorel, theruling classesof thelate19th andearly 20th century werelooking desperately fornew popularmythsandnarrativeswhich mightsustaintheirhegemony, whentheinuenceofreligionwasweakening. So whentheFrench ultra-leisthanded themthemyth of thegeneralstrike, they said no, thank you as farasthe

contentof thegiwasconcerned, buteagerly accepted thewrapping.Salvemini, onthismatter, isstillvery useful:

Fascist revolutionary syndicalism is mere humbug. . . . What Fascistdoctrinehasincommonwith Sorelisnotsyndicalism, butthedislikeofparliamentary institutions, the advocacy of violent direct action. . . andthemethodsof exciting theemotionsof themobthrough mythsinorderto beableto exploitthoseemotionsforendsanything butmythical. Butthese doctrines werenot invented by Sorel and they haveno essentialconnexionwith therealsyndicalistdoctrine(Salvemini1969: 37375).

And the same applied when Sorel was embraced by the German(proto)-fascists; they, too, adhered to theformalaspectsof hisdoctrineand discarded the content, at least insofar that itwassocially radical.

CarlSchmitt, oneof thefrstto introduceinGermany theideasof theFrench anarcho-syndicalist, was unambiguousabout the social valueof theSorelianmyth, which certainly did notlieprecisely initspowerto ignitestrikes:

Tetheory of myth isthemostpowerfulsymptom of thedeclineof therelativerationalism of parliamentary thought. If anarchistauthors[besidesSorel, Schmitt refers to Bakunin and Proudhon] have discovered theimportanceof themythical from anopposition to authority and unity,thenthey havealso cooperated inestablishing thefoundationof anotherauthority, howeverunwillingly, anauthority based onthenew feeling fororder, discipline, and hierarchy (Schmitt1988: 76).30

Another important and authoritative confrmation of this view fromwithin the fascist camp is provided by GiovanniGentile, perhaps thephilosophicalvoiceof Italianfascism. In1928, retrospectively equippingfascism with adoctrine and reecting on theriseof themovement,Gentilesaluted thebenefcial impactof Sorelssyndicalist ideasat thestartof the20th century. He saw them asan idealist forcehelping to

30 Buckmiller(1985) drawsattentioninseveralplacesto thispurely formalistway inwhich theGermanright-wing had adapted Sorelsideas(seepage56 with relationtoSchmitt, aswellas59, 61). Tepieceisalso signifcantinstressing thatamong thosetruly interested inclassstruggleand ready to wield theweaponof striking, namely theGermanle-wing, Sorelsimpacthad beennegligible. Hewaseitherignored, asinthecaseof RosaLuxemburg, ordismissed as confused and bourgeois by the likesofAntonPannekoek and Gustav Eckstein(cf. 5253).


32/33

218 chapter our

shakeItaliansoutof theirmaterialistic and hedonistic daze. Two mainaspects were singled out inwhich Sorelianism had beenbenefcial intransforming Italiansocialism. Tefrst, indeed, isthevibrantintransi-genceof itsproletarianactionasopposed to moderate, reformistsocial-ism. Here, theone-timeliberaland exemplary Bildungsbrgerawkwardly

goesthrough themotionsof working-classradicalism:(1) the rejection of that strategy of foolish and deceptive collaborationof socialism with theparliamentary democracy of theliberalState. Insodoing, socialism succeeded only inbetraying theproletariataswellastheliberalState(Gentile2007: 12).

Sorels second contribution was said to be the substitution of actionmotivated by myths, for the otherwise materialistic conception ofsocialism:

(2) [Asopposed to standard socialism, theproletariatfound insyndical-ism] afaith inamoralreality, exquisitely ideal(or mythic, aswassaidatthetime), forwhich onewould beprepared to live, die, and sacrifce

onesel

f,e

ven

t

ot

he

point

of usin

g vi

olen

ce

whene

ver

vi

olen

ce

was

ne

ces

-sary to destroy anestablished orderto createanother(12).

To thosewho arewilling to takehim athisword, GentilemustindeedappeararadicalSorelianrevolutionary, rejecting thehumiliating com-promiseswith liberalism and prepared to useviolenceto overturnthecapitalistorder. And yet, justa few pages further on, when depictingthesituationinpost-WarItaly inwhich theworkersweregrowing everdefant, thetributeto theradicalaspectof Sorelslegacy revealsitself asmerelip service. Suddenly, Gentilelamentsthefactthattheworkershadindeed ceased to compromisewith the liberalStateand to collaboratewith parliamentary democracy, and proceeded to threatenitwith arevo-lution, intheprocessevengoing to thelength of interferingheaven

forbid!with economic life:

Tegangliaof economic lifeappeared thoroughly impaired. Work stop-page followed work stoppage. . . . A sense of revolution permeated theatmospherewhich theweak ruling class felt impotentto resist. Groundwasgradually ceded and accommodationsmadewith the leadersof thesocialist movement. Under [Giolitti], . . . there was sedition among theemployees of the Stateand the occupation of the factoriesby workers;thevery economic organism of theadministrationof theStatewasmor-tally wounded (1516).

Sorel, theanarchist, is swily transformed into Pareto, the economicliberalbemoaning theinability of politicalliberalism to shield thegan-


33/33


gliaof economic life from working-classharm. Militant, independent,intransigent, violent, proletarianactionmay havebeenSorelspanacea,but they are certainly Gentilesnightmare. Work stoppages, whichshould have thrilled a Sorelian, mortify him. What remainsusefulofSorel isonly thesecond contribution, thatwhich extols thereadiness

of the worker to live, die, and sacrifce oneself, even using violenceto destroy an established order to create another. Yet the order thatwillbedestroyed inthenameof theSorelianmyth willnotbethatofeconomic liberalism. Onthecontrary, Mussolini, thelion, willsubduethe seditiousemployees and liberate the occupied factories, whereGiolitti, thefox, had compromised. Tis, underfascism, iswhatSorelianviolenceboiled downto (if indeed itwaseverreally meantto becomeadierentkind of food).

We ought to briey remind ourselves, fnally, that this discussionisnot a strictly theoretical aair, address

ishay landa - the strange case of georges sorel (excerpt from the apprentice's sorcerer)

Documents